BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.219 of 2015
Date of Institution : 10.12.2015
Date of Decision : 25.10.2016.
Suraj Pal son of Sh. Harful Singh, resident of village Kelnia, P.O. Ahmedpur, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Unique Sales Corporation, Opposite Head Post Office, Sirsa- 125055 (Haryana) through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.
2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Registered Officer: A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044 through its Managing Director/ Manager/ Authorized signatory.
3. Chugh Telecom, New M.C.Market Shop No.81, 82, 83 Sirsa- 125055 through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….…PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL …… …MEMBER.
Present: Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.J.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant was in need of a mobile with digital camera as he is posted as Junior Engineer in Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and has to take pictures and make videos of the construction work at the site. Accordingly, he had purchased mobile handset make Sony Model Z1 from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.26,900/- vide bill No.17830 dated 11.1.2015 with guarantee of one year. Thereafter, the complainant was shocked to notice that there arisen a major defect in the mobile as the mobile handset started getting warmed during video recording and after 2-3 minutes of recording, the camera used to switch off automatically. The said problem was found to be unsolved and same are still in the mobile. The complainant contacted with op no.2 through e-mail and on toll-free number on 30.5.2015 but no heed was paid by company and he again sent a reminder on 4.6.2015 and as per directions given by company, he visited to op no.3 who kept the mobile with it. The op no.3 after some days returned the mobile by only updating the software and he was told by op no.3 that warm problem is normal thing and warms due to temperature, but mobile used to become warm even in AC room at temperature of 19 degree. In this way, the defect in the mobile could not be removed by ops and the purpose of purchasing the mobile by complainant could not be fulfilled. Then on the asking of op no.2 he again visited op no.3 and handed over the mobile set but thereafter a total false reply has been received through e-mail dated 4.11.2015 that “the reported heating issue is actually the activation of the protection. After a while, when internal circuits cool, intended function can be resumed. We cannot do any service to the handset to change the performance of the product according to your expectation.” Thereafter also, the complainant has made several requests to the ops to resolve his problem but till date the ops have not paid any heed to the requests of complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply pleading therein that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile and the ops have provided free of cost services to the complainant each and every time he has approached the ops. The subject handset of the complainant has passed the battery test conducted by ops and same is working in a fine condition. The ops vide letter dated 30.12.2015 have reminded the complainant to collect his handset, however, he has failed to do so. It is submitted that ops issued job sheet to the complainant each time and thus any other dates mentioned in the complaint other than 19.5.2015, 30.5.2015 and 24.10.2015 are wrong and false. No mode of communication has been made between the parties on 2.6.2015, 2.11.2015, 4.11.2015 and on 4.11.2015 as the same is not being reflected in the records of ops. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of e-mails Ex.C3 to Ex.C8 and service job sheet dated 30.5.2015 Ex.C9. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit Ex.OP1, copy of resolution Ex.OP1/1, copy of warranty card Ex.OP1/2 and copy of letter dated 30.12.2015 Ex.OP1/3.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. There is absolutely nothing on record to prove or to presume any manufacturing defect in the mobile set, purchased by the complainant from opposite party no.1. In this regard, only his own affidavit is not, at all, sufficient to prove manufacturing defect in the mobile set. To prove manufacturing defect, the complainant could have got the mobile set examined from some expert. But, he has not done so. The opposite parties got conducted battery test of the mobile and same has been passed in the test report Ex.OP1/4. Normal wear and tear cannot be said to be manufacturing defect. The ops have also got inspected the mobile through their engineer who observed that the issue is related with the software and necessary software were updated. As such, the complainant has failed to prove his case.
6. Resultantly, the present complaint stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 25.10.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
